Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: hotplug: implement non-movable version of get_user_pages() called get_user_pages_non_movable()
From: Lin Feng <hidden>
Date: 2013-02-19 13:37:55
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
Hi Mel, On 02/05/2013 09:32 PM, Mel Gorman wrote:
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 11:57:22AM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:quoted
quoted
quoted
+ migrate_pre_flag = 1; + } + + if (!isolate_lru_page(pages[i])) { + inc_zone_page_state(pages[i], NR_ISOLATED_ANON + + page_is_file_cache(pages[i])); + list_add_tail(&pages[i]->lru, &pagelist); + } else { + isolate_err = 1; + goto put_page; + }isolate_lru_page() takes the LRU lock every time.Credit to Michal Hocko for bringing this up but with the number of other issues I missed that this is also broken with respect to huge page handling. hugetlbfs pages will not be on the LRU so the isolation will mess up and the migration has to be handled differently. Ordinarily hugetlbfs pages cannot be allocated from ZONE_MOVABLE but it is possible to configure it to be allowed via /proc/sys/vm/hugepages_treat_as_movable. If this encounters a hugetlbfs page, it'll just blow up.
I look into the migrate_huge_page() codes find that if we support the hugetlbfs non movable migration, we have to invent another alloc_huge_page_node_nonmovable() or such allocate interface, which cost is large(exploding the codes and great impact on current alloc_huge_page_node()) but gains little, I think that pinning hugepage is a corner case. So can we skip over hugepage without migration but give some WARN_ON() info, is it acceptable?
The other is that this almost certainly broken for transhuge page handling. gup returns the head and tail pages and ordinarily this is ok
I can't find codes doing such things :(, could you please point me out?
because the caller only cares about the physical address. Migration will also split a hugepage if it receives it but you are potentially adding tail pages to a list here and then migrating them. The split of the first page will get very confused. I'm not exactly sure what the result will be but it won't be pretty. Was THP enabled when this was tested? Was CONFIG_DEBUG_LIST enabled during testing?
I checked my config file that both CONFIG options aboved are enabled. However it was only be tested by two services invoking io_setup(), it works fine.. thanks, linfeng -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>